(1978)1978 May 31 [HADJIANASTASSIOU, A. LOIZOU, MALACHTOS, JJ.] (. G. KASOULIDES & SON LTD., Appellants (Applicants), v. N. & M. HADJIPAVLOU ESTATE LTD., Respondents. (Civil Appeal No. 5723). Rent Control Law, 1975 (Law 36/75)—Stricken area—Section 3
(2)of the Law—Adjustment of rent in stricken areas under section 10of the Law—Has nothingtodowithdetermination of rent under section 1 of the Law—Trial Judge's discretion exercised by taking into consideration all facts and circumstances—No reason to interfere with Judge's discretion or disagree with his application of the Law on the matter—Iacovidou v. Constantinou
(1976)2 J.S.C. 246 at pp. 250-251 applied. 5 Landlord and tenant—Stricken area—Adjustment of rent—Section 10 of the Rent Control Law, 1975 (Law 36 of 1975). 10 The appellants who were tenants of shops within a striken* area applied, under section 10 of the Rent Control Law, 1975 (Law 36/75), for the adjustment of the rent payable in respect of such shops on the ground that on account of their proximity to the Turkish occupied areas their printing business was adversely affected and substantially reduced. 15 The trial Court having particularly taken into consideration the reduction of the business in the area (see s. 10
(2)of the Law at p. 343 post) reached the conclusion that the fair rent should be £55 per month as from the 1st October, 1974 instead 20 of £100 which was the rent payable until then. See Order of the Council of Ministers made under section 3
(2)of the Rent Control Law, 1975, published under Notification No. 213 in Suppl. No. 3 to the Official Gazette of the 8th November, 1975. 340 1 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 30 Kasoolldes & Son τ. Hadjipavlou Estate The tenants appealed contending that thetrial Judge proceeded to decide the case limiting himself to the provisions of section 10 of Law 36 of 1975 (supra) which he applied disjunctively from the other provisions of the Law and especially section 7 thereof and that in any event the rent assessed by him was not a reasonable one in the circumstances. On the other hand the landlords cross-appealed contending that the rent as assessed was too low and should be increased. Held,
(1)that in ascertaining the reasonable rent the Court must take into consideration the reduction of the business in the area and under section 10
(1)this power is given independenly of other provisions of the law; that an application for adjust ment of the rent had to be made within two months from the publication of the order under section 3
(2)of the law; and that section 7 has nothing to do with section 10 in the sense that a tenant in a controlled area, whether for a business premises or a house, may at any time apply to the Court to have the rent assessed thereunder.
(2)That as the trial Court has taken into consideration all facts and circumstances placed before it by the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicants and in addition the 20 per cent reduction to which the applicant was entitled as a stricken person, by virtue of section 15 (c) of the Law, there is no reason to interfere with the exercise of the Court's discretion or disagree with the application of the law on the matter. (Principles laid down in Iacovidou v. Constantinou
(1976)2 J.S.C. 246 atpp. 250-251, regarding the grounds on which the Court of Appeal will interfere with the conclusions of, the trial Court relating to the evaluation of the relevant factual situation and to the assessment of the rent, applied). Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed. Cases referred to: 35 Level Tachexcavs v. Kargotis
(1970)1 C.L.R. 163; Iacovidou v. Constantinou
(1976)2 J.S.C. 246 (to be reported in
(1976)1 C.L.R.). Appeal and cross-appeal. Appeal and cross-appeal against the judgment of the District Court of Nicosia (Papadopoulos, S.D.J.) dated the 6th April, 1977, (Application N o . 256/75) whereby the monthly rent of 341 Kasoulides & SOD V.Hadjipavlou Estate
(1978)thirteen shops at Mani Syreet, Nicosia,was fixed at £55.- per month as from the 1stOctober, 1974as against £100 per month payable until then. C. Velaris with /. SpanopouIIos,for the appellants. E. Ioannou (Airs.), for the respondents. 5 Cur. adv. vult. The facts sufficiently appear in thejudgment of the Court. HADJIANASTASSIOU J.: The judgment of the Court will be delivered by Mr. Justice A. Loizou. A. Loizou J.: This is an appeal and cross-appeal from the 10 judgment of the District Court of Nicosia, by which, on the application of the appellants under section 10 of the Rent Control Law, 1975 (Law No. 36 of 1975) (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Law"), the rent of thirteen shops used by them for their printing works, situated at Mani, Street, Nicosia, 15 was fixed at £55per month as from the 1st October, 1974as against the £100 per month rent payable until then. Mani Street is within a part of Nicosia which the Council of Ministers by Order under section 3
(2)ofthe Law,published under Notification No. 213 in Suppl. No. 3 to the Official 20 Gazette of the Republic No. 1234of the 8th November, 1975 declared as a stricken area, having considered it necessary or expedient to do so, because, on account of its proximity to dangerous points, the usual carrying out of work was adversely affected and substantially reduced, and this measure was made 25 impelative to be taken for their relief. In consequence of this order the appellants being tenants of shops within the stricken area, were entitled to apply, under section 10 of the Law, for the adjustment of the rent on the ground that, on account of their pioximity to theTurkish occu- 30 pied areas—they ate almost on the confrontation line—theii printing business was adversely affected and substantially reduced. In fact, for the first few months after the invasion, no business could be carried out, not only because of the dangers involved in having access to the premises in question, but also 35 because electricity supply wasout, telephones disconnected and there were problems with the water supply and sewage. The tiial Judge, on the evidence before him, came to the 342 1 C.L.R. Kasoulides & Son v. Hadjipavlou Estate A. Loizou J. conclusion that the appellants had been badly affected by the situation; their business came to a standstill durng the first few months and though it started gradually improving, yet, it did noi reach the pre-war levels, as u employed only 25 employees 5 as against 50 before; in effect they were more than doubly affected, though a printing press was not of the kind of business that could be greatly affected by the non extensive circulation of people in the area as on account of its nature, work could be carried out over the phone provided their prices were com10 petitive; account was also taken of the fact that part of the shops in question was used by the National Guard and he reached the conclusion that the fair rent in the circumstances should be £55 per month, having borne in mind also the provi sions of section 15 (c) of the Law and the movement of the area 15 as stated in section 10
(2)of the Law and in particular having taken into consideration the reduction of the business in the area. 20 25 The case for the appellants is,that the learned trial Judge proceeded to decide the case limiting himself to the provisions of section 10 of the Law which he applied disjunctively from the other provisions of the Law and especially section 7 thereof and that in any event the rent assessed by him was not a reason able one in the circumstances. On the other hand, the re pondents/landlords by their crossappeal, claim that the rent as assessed was too low and should be increased. Section 10
(2)of the Law reads as follows: 30 35 " Els ην περίπτωσιν υποβάλλεται τοιαύτη αίτησις είς το Δικαστήριον τό Δικαστηρίουεξετάζει ταύτην καΐ κατόπινδιεΣαγωγης τοιαύτης έρεύνης οίαν τούτο ήθελε θεωρήσει κατάλληλον καΐ παροχής είς ευ έκαστου τώυ διαδίκων της ευκαιρίας υά τύχη ακροάσεως, καθορίζει τοιούτον ποσόυ ώς καταβλητέου ένοίκιουοίου τό Δικαστηρίου, λαμβανομένηςύπ όψιυ της μειώσεως τώυ έργασιώυ της περιοχής, ήθελε θεωρήσει λογικού καΐ τό ούτω καθορισθέυ ποσόυ θεωρείται ώς τό έυοίκιουτό όποιουό έυοικιαστήςυποχρεούταινάκαταβάλλη είς του ίδιοκτήτηυ." (" Where such an application is made to the Court, the Court shall consider it and after making such inquiry as 343 A. Loizou J. Kasoulides &Son v. Hadjipavlou Estate
(1978)it may think fit, and giving to each party an opportunity of being heard, shall determine such an amount as rent payable as the Court, having regard to the reduction of business in the area, may think reasonable, and such sum determined shall be considered as the rent which the tenant must pay to the landlord."). 5 The aforesaid section empowers a Court to fix the reasonable rent in respect of business premisesin a strickenarea,sodeclared under section 3
(2)of the Law. In ascertaining the reasonable rent, the Court must take into consideration the reduction of 10 the business in the area and under section 10
(1)this power is given, independently of other provisions of the Law; moreover, an application for that purpose had to be made within two months from the publication of the order under section 3
(2)of the Law. In contra-distinction, section 7 of the Law empo- 15 wers a Court to adjust rents either by increasing or reducing them for both houses and shops within a controlled area. Section 7 has nothing to do with section 10 in the sense that a tenant in a controlled area whether for a business premises or a house, may at any time, apply to the Court to have the 20 rent assessed thereunder. A person who applied under section 7 was not precluded from applying under section 10, within the time specified, upon the declaration of a part of a controlled area as a stricken area. In ascertaining, however, what isreasonable rent under section 10 the discretion of the Court is not 25 thereby restricted; the Court is moreover entitled to take into consideration the reduction of the business in the area. In other words, in addition to the factors persona! to the tenant and the landlord, connected with the events that necessitated the declaration of a part of a controlled area as stricken under 30 section 3
(2)of the Law that are relevant in arriving at the reasonable rent, ii introduces also the factor of the reduction of the business in the area which is one of the most material in declaring an area as stricken. We need not therefore refer to the case of Level Tachexcavs v. Kargotis
(1970)I C.L.R. 35 163, followed also in the case of Iacovidou v. Constantinou
(1976)2 J.S.C. p. 246*. as the principles governing the exercise of the Court's discretion under section 7
(2)of Law 17/61, which corresponds to s. 7
(2)of the Law, have no direct bearing * To be report-jJ in
(1976)1 C.L.R. 344 1 C.L.R. Kasoulides & Son v. Hadjipavlou Estate A. Loizou J. with the exercise of the Court's discretion under section 10
(2)of the Law. In the present case, the Court did take into consideration all facts and circumstances placed before it by the evidence adduced 5 on behalf of the applicants and, in addition, as it clearly states in its judgment, the fact that by virtue of section 15(c) of the Law, a 20 per cent reduction to which the applicant was thereunder entitled as a stricken person. We may conclude in this case by repeating what was stated 10 in the case of Iacovidou v. Constantinou(supra)at pp. 250-251 :- 15 20 " The evaluation of the relevant factual situation is primarily the task of a trial Court and this Court is particularly reluctant to reverse a trial Court on the question of what, in all he circumstances, it thinks as being the reasonable rent to be approved or the reasonable amount of the increase or reduction thereof. In order that this Court should interfere with such a conclusion, it should have been satisfied that the trial Court has acted upon a wrong principle of law or has misapprehended the facts or has made a wholly erroneous estimate of the reasonable rent which is not the case." Applying with equal force the aforesaid approach to the present case, we say that we find no reason to interfere with the exercise of the Court's discretion. 25 For all the above reasons both the appeal and the crossappeal are dismissed, as we find no reason to interfere with the exercise of the trial Judge's discretion or disagree with the application of the Law on the matter, and in the circumstances we make no order,as~to~costs. __ 30^ „ __. /^~~ ' Appeal and Cross-appeal ' y y dismissed. No order as to . yS COStS. 345